Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is this you trying to be funny or is the point just flying over your head?I don't want to burst your bubble but you do know that Kit didn't really talk right? Cars can't talk, except in cheesy action series or Disney films like Herby goes Bannanas.
I've been in a talking car. But it was a stupid one because it believed my door was really a jar.I don't want to burst your bubble but you do know that Kit didn't really talk right? Cars can't talk, except in cheesy action series or Disney films like Herby goes Bannanas.
You mean 3x the size of other apes. Having the biggest brain doesn't remove us from that clan.We know that you get a large amount of divergance from canines, we know because we have been breeding dogs for so long. With primates the cranial capacity put us at three times the size of apes making this our most distinctive feature.
So, according to you, Homo erectus is definitely human, but the gracile version of that, Homo floresiensis is definitely "just" an apeI would say that an ape does not exceed 800cc and the average between 400cc and 500cc. There is a cerbral rubicon that apes cannot cross, brain tissue is just too highly conserved.
We know that you get a large amount of divergance from canines, we know because we have been breeding dogs for so long. With primates the cranial capacity put us at three times the size of apes making this our most distinctive feature.
My 12 year old students didn't even know that the US is a democracy. It took some work to have them realize the freedoms they take for granted.Its pretty simple really. We do not teach people to think, we teach them to perform. Most students never develop the ability to conceptualize abstract concepts, or use deductive/inductive reasoning to peice together independant lines of thought.
Mark, you've whined about this many times, and you've never justified it. This is not semantics, and it certainly isn't a shell game no matter how you would like to make it one. At the same time, I know you've said we [evolutionists] don't define our central terms, and you've recently claimed there was no scientific definition of the word, "ape", but you were wrong on both counts, and you already knew that before you said it, because I had already shown you that definition and the consensus of scientific sources for it back when we had our debate two years ago.It can get confusing when they get into the semanticial shell games.
No sir. We are the same. Two years ago, I explained to you in detail that "Hominid" is synonemous with "great ape", that it refers to "large" Hominoids [apes] with especially large, unusually intelligent brains capable of comprehending language, or of making and using simple tools; having relatively sparse fur, an inability to synthesize vitamin C, and a unique dentition which includes 32 teeth consisting of incisors, cuspids, bicuspids, canines, and molars, the latter of which have four roots, and come to five points interrupted by a Y-shaped crevasse." Again, I substantiated this definition with several references from scientific sources where you weren't able to cite anything more than antiquated layman's dictionaries.Austropithicus simply means southern ape, most of the apes that are considered our ancestors were found in southern Africa. The general term austropithecine is a common way of refering to them but don't expect anything that clear and concise in this forum. The hominids start somwhere about 5 million years ago and are thought to be apes with distinct human features, thus the prefix Homo 'same'.
Again, no. Ardipithecus and all the Australopithecines including all the Paranthropines were all fully-erect and habitually bi-pedal. That's what "hominine" means. I've explained that to you before, but you demonstrate the same learning difficulty then as now.Up until Homo habilis we are talking about a semi-bipedal 3 foot tall chimpanzee basically.
Wrong again. Comparing specimens of Homo habilis to Homo erectus, their cranial capacities overlapped so that some habilines had brains larger than some erectines. The gap you're so desperately pleading for simply does not exist, and its a little annoying to have you still reciting the same falsehoods years after you've taught all the correct meanings of these words.This thing had a cranial capacity slightly bigger then a modern ape. From Homo habilis to the Homo erectus specimens the brain size literally doubles in a couple of hundred thousand years.
And ignore the definitions of either word.That's why they like to play this semantical shell game, the fossils are obviously ape or human if you really look at them.
If you concentrate on finding differences, you can isolate any one man from all other men. There are differences between you and I too. But that doesn't mean we're not distantly-related.Try this site, notice the differences between Homo habilis and Homo erectus.
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html
As well as a chimp's ancestor too. That's why we can show things like Dryopithecines. Being ancestral to chimps doesn't mean it can't ancestral to humans too -if you go back far enough.Ask them to show you the chimpanzee's ancestors from southern Africa. They can't do that because everytime an ape skull turns up in Africa it's immediatly considered one of our ancestors.
Once again, this is not semantics. Its just that your arguments are utterly meaningless, and here's why: Some dogs have a sagittal crest too,Same with the gorrila, check this guy out:
This guy has a cranial capacity of 410 cc, notice the sagittal crest (mohawk looking thing down the middle of the skull). This looks just like a gorrila to me:
One of the distinctions between a chimpanzees skull and a gorilla is the chimpanzee skull is smooth on top. You have you use some personal judgement when looking at these fossil skulls and don't get all wrapped up in their semantical head trips.
Actually, not only does the Bible acknowledge that humans are animals, but it says that other animals besides us have souls too.
But not in the population. Evolution is the change of allele frequencies in a population.
Two different, successive audiences in a theatre would be two different populations.
You mean 3x the size of other apes. Having the biggest brain doesn't remove us from that clan.So, according to you, Homo erectus is definitely human, but the gracile version of that, Homo floresiensis is definitely "just" an ape
because their brains were only half the size of Homo habilis. How do you justify this?
Meanwhile, Homo habilis is right at the cusp of human, and overlapping the range of erectines. So which is he?
But it would be two different populations. That's the point. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in a population, not the change of populations.Well you could say the population of the theatre changes. Local populations exist within larger populations. The population of the theatre is pretty small but I think you could still call it a population.
The skulls will be discernable as human or ape even if the size does not seem consistant. .
Now read the follow-up in the same publication which contests that on several points, and comments impolitely on the basis of the assertions made prior. Of course you can also read a summary of that on Talk.Origins:The skulls will be discernable as human or ape even if the size does not seem consistant. The 'Hobbit' skull LB1 it turns out was just a microcephalic modern human.
Fig. 2. Comparison of LB1 and microcephalic skulls. (A) LB1 (1). (B) Left half-skull of a dentally adult male human microcephalic from India (15, 16) held in the collections of the Hunterian Museum, London (RCSHM/Osteo 95.1). The two skulls are drawn to the same scale and are similar in overall size and proportions and in features such as the receding forehead. (C) The left side of a human microcephalic endocast from the collections of the Field Museum, Chicago (accession no. A219680) derived from the skull of a 32-year-old woman from Lesotho who had the body size of a 12-year-old child (17). (D) An endocast from the Hunterian microcephalic specimen. Both (C) and (D) have relatively normal external appearance despite their very small size. Drawings by Jill SeagardComment on "The Brain of LB1, Homo floresiensis" Science AAAS
Except that their anatomomy in many key aspects lies directly half-way between the proportions of chimpanzees and modern humans, and humans still adhere to the definition of "ape".Australopithecus afarensis, Australopithecus africanus are apes that have not changed that much from prehistoric times. They are ape ancestors and don't belong in the human line at all.
According to Minnesota State University, the average brain size is 80cc higher than your highest estimate, and the largest specimen to date is "about" 800cc, a mark which your own resource admits was only an arbitrary choice to determine humanity, and which has since been reduced by 200cc.Homo habilis are apes. Homo habilis has a cranial capacity of 510cc to just under 600cc Twiggy OH 24 and KNM ER 1813
I would agree, except of course for the utter lack of any forehead, the profoundly jutting brow, and the fact that the brain size averages only 75% of that of modern humans. As I told you before, most creationists would never accept this as being a human skull! Most creationists would say that this was "just an ape".Homo erectus are human beginning with Turkana Boy you are talking about specimans African and Asian with cranial capacities very close to modern humans. There have been extensive endocranial comparisons that do not distinguish Homo erectus, at least to my satisfaction, from anatomically modern humans.
But it would be two different populations. That's the point. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time in a population, not the change of populations.
Local populations would have fixed traits and deformities unless they could cross breed with other species.
Yes it is. When you can substantiate your claim, you can demonstrate its accuracy, so that it is no longer a mere baseless assertion. You should try it sometime.
Smaller populations are more adaptable, because it takes fewer generations for a beneficial trait to fix. As such, if a smaller population evolves some feature that makes it outcompete the larger population, it could easily push it out of existence.It wouldn't make sense for a local population, a species, to out do the larger population. Not if they're specialized by natural selection to one location.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?